Archive:000/Public transit - Revision history

Elie: Elie moved page Public transit to Archive:000/Public transit without leaving a redirect: Huge_refactor

2024-10-26T20:30:07Z

Elie moved page Public transit to Archive:000/Public transit without leaving a redirect: Huge_refactor

← Older revision	Revision as of 16:30, 26 October 2024
(No difference)

Elie at 12:36, 24 February 2024

2024-02-24T12:36:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:36, 24 February 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~[[File:publictransit1~~.~~jpg\|thumb]]~~		Public transit includes city buses, trams and trains.

	~~Public transit includes city buses, trams and trains.~~ Compared to private cars, public transit has the potential to prevent traffic congestion, save fuel, and save time for the average rider.		==Why==
			Compared to private cars, public transit has the potential to prevent traffic congestion, save [[climate change\|fuel]] & money, and if done right, save time for the average rider.

	~~However, public transit ''done wrong'' could actually use ''more'' fuel per rider - especially in places where~~ buses run mostly empty most of the time.~~{{qn}}~~		==Considerations==
			* [[/Empty buses]]: When some bus routes run mostly empty most of the time, it can be just as costly as driving a car (per capita, both in terms of money ''and'' the environment). What can be done about this?
			<!--* [[/Density\|How much population density does it take]] to have efficient public transit?-->

	~~Low-density suburbs are particularly hard to service in an energy-efficient way, for this reason. We often end up with a particular conundrum:~~		==By region / What needs to be done==
	* Not many people ride the bus, so it's a waste of fuel to send buses often.		{{empty}}
	* But if buses don't come often, then the service is too hard to use, so fewer people ride the bus. No one wants to walk 40 minutes to a bus stop or wait 40 minutes for a bus, for example.
	~~This naturally creates controversy between the folks who want to expand public transit vs the folks who don't.~~

	~~To help resolve this controversy, I propose a simple '''thought experiment:'''~~
	* Imagine a typical suburb.
	* Suppose everyone was fully willing to take public transit instead of driving, ''if only'' the public transit was convenient and easy to ~~use. For simplicity sake, let's say that people would take the bus if there was 1 bus passing every 8 minutes during peak hours{{x\|peak hours could~~ be defined in any number of ways; also we could assume that people would still use their cars in off-peak or wherever the bus service is lacking}}, and if bus lines were spaced out only 400m from each other.
	* How much fuel per km<sup>2</sup> would it take to send that many buses?
	* How does that compare to the status quo of suburban car usage, in fuel per km<sup>2</sup>?
	* Also compare to the estimated fuel usage of a "no public transit, but people choose to carpool" scenario.
	* From this, we can get a clue as to whether public transit could really help the suburbs save fuel or not.
	{{~~aip~~}}

	==See also==		==See also==
	* [[Walkability]], which would reduce the overall need for transport altogether.		* [[Walkability]], which would reduce the overall need for transport altogether.
	* [[Intensification]] - if suburbs were denser, the benefits of public transit might be easier to achieve.		* [[Intensification]] - if suburbs were denser, the benefits of public transit might be easier to achieve.
			* [[Carpooling]], which can sometimes be more efficient than public transit

Elie: Created page with "thumb Public transit includes city buses, trams and trains. Compared to private cars, public transit has the potential to prevent traffic congestion, save fuel, and save time for the average rider. However, public transit ''done wrong'' could actually use ''more'' fuel per rider - especially in places where buses run mostly empty most of the time.{{qn}} Low-density suburbs are particularly hard to service in an energy-efficient way, for thi..."

2023-02-27T12:04:22Z

Created page with "thumb Public transit includes city buses, trams and trains. Compared to private cars, public transit has the potential to prevent traffic congestion, save fuel, and save time for the average rider. However, public transit ''done wrong'' could actually use ''more'' fuel per rider - especially in places where buses run mostly empty most of the time.{{qn}} Low-density suburbs are particularly hard to service in an energy-efficient way, for thi..."

New page

[[File:publictransit1.jpg|thumb]]

Public transit includes city buses, trams and trains. Compared to private cars, public transit has the potential to prevent traffic congestion, save fuel, and save time for the average rider.

However, public transit ''done wrong'' could actually use ''more'' fuel per rider - especially in places where buses run mostly empty most of the time.{{qn}}

Low-density suburbs are particularly hard to service in an energy-efficient way, for this reason. We often end up with a particular conundrum:
* Not many people ride the bus, so it's a waste of fuel to send buses often.
* But if buses don't come often, then the service is too hard to use, so fewer people ride the bus. No one wants to walk 40 minutes to a bus stop or wait 40 minutes for a bus, for example.
This naturally creates controversy between the folks who want to expand public transit vs the folks who don't.

To help resolve this controversy, I propose a simple '''thought experiment:'''
* Imagine a typical suburb.
* Suppose everyone was fully willing to take public transit instead of driving, ''if only'' the public transit was convenient and easy to use. For simplicity sake, let's say that people would take the bus if there was 1 bus passing every 8 minutes during peak hours{{x|peak hours could be defined in any number of ways; also we could assume that people would still use their cars in off-peak or wherever the bus service is lacking}}, and if bus lines were spaced out only 400m from each other.
* How much fuel per km<sup>2</sup> would it take to send that many buses?
* How does that compare to the status quo of suburban car usage, in fuel per km<sup>2</sup>?
* Also compare to the estimated fuel usage of a "no public transit, but people choose to carpool" scenario.
* From this, we can get a clue as to whether public transit could really help the suburbs save fuel or not.
{{aip}}

==See also==
* [[Walkability]], which would reduce the overall need for transport altogether.
* [[Intensification]] - if suburbs were denser, the benefits of public transit might be easier to achieve.